In some ways, it only is. It certainly shouldn't be structural in the
cases of shallow footings where there is bound to be some movement. It's
only to form a waterproof seal.

If 1/4" of mortar on top of a powdered substrate provided such a seal, I'd
agree with you.

N. Thornton wrote in message ...
Tanking the walls with aquapanel and painting the exterior are about
the last things that will help a Vic house with damp. They are known
_causes_ of damp in Vic houses. I'm sure you mean well, but Vic houses
do not work like modern buildings at all when it comes to damp.

Aquapanels do not constitute tanking by any stretch of the imagination.
Victorian houses leak because the mortar has degraded. Short of re-building
them you have to use some kind of modern (sorry, I'll wash my mouth out)
materials.

I'm sure you mean well,

And don't be so bloody patronising.

In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
Well, it was given as an alternative to a mortar skim plus replaster of
the bottom metre or so, so I took it it was? Or are you recommending
replacing the plaster on *all* outside walls with this method?

IME penetrating damp usually manifests itself in the lower part of the
wall. Most of the rain runs down the wall, and only starts to soak in
lower down.

In general, you try and prevent rain running down the wall in most
conditions. That's what guttering is for.
And if your theory is correct, you'd never get damp in an upstairs room.

Assuming the original plaster is ok, it's simply adding considerable
cost.

If the originasl plaster is ok, it's a pretty good sign you don't have a
damp problem.

Oh I can assure you those 'damp meters' can show the presence of water in
apparently perfect 'old' plaster. Certainly did in my case. But it's still
there some 30 years later, looking fine.

If you've cured the cause of penetrating damp by removing piled up soil
etc and made sure the pointing is sound - as you'd have to do anyway -
leaving things to dry out naturally in a habited house would be my advice.

Penetrating damp usually occurs where the mortar has degraded to the
point where it is porous or has developed hairline cracks at the join
with the bricks.

You mean the original mortar the bricks were laid on? If a wall relied on
this being a perfect seal, they'd all leak. Have you never dismantled one?

The pointing is what matters.

--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
In some ways, it only is. It certainly shouldn't be structural in the
cases of shallow footings where there is bound to be some movement.
It's only to form a waterproof seal.

If 1/4" of mortar on top of a powdered substrate provided such a seal,
I'd agree with you.

It's perfectly possible for a skilled person to form decent weather proof
tuck pointing by only raking out to a nominal 1/4" depth.

BTW, it's the seal to the bricks that is important, not that to the mortar
behind.

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
"stuart noble" writes:

In some ways, it only is. It certainly shouldn't be structural in the
cases of shallow footings where there is bound to be some movement. It's
only to form a waterproof seal.

If 1/4" of mortar on top of a powdered substrate provided such a seal, I'd
agree with you.

It does. That much sand and cement scratch coat with a waterproofer
will prevent finish coat plaster being damaged by a damp wall behind.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"stuart noble" wrote in message ...
N. Thornton wrote in message ...

Tanking the walls with aquapanel and painting the exterior are about
the last things that will help a Vic house with damp. They are known
_causes_ of damp in Vic houses. I'm sure you mean well, but Vic houses
do not work like modern buildings at all when it comes to damp.

Aquapanels do not constitute tanking by any stretch of the imagination.

both prevent evaporation of damp from walls, resulting in build up of
dampness to problem levels, causing mould and damage to building
materials.


Victorian houses leak because the mortar has degraded.

wrong

Short of re-building
them you have to use some kind of modern (sorry, I'll wash my mouth out)
materials.

wrong


I'm sure you mean well,

And don't be so bloody patronising.


NT

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
Well, it was given as an alternative to a mortar skim plus replaster of
the bottom metre or so, so I took it it was? Or are you recommending
replacing the plaster on *all* outside walls with this method?

IME penetrating damp usually manifests itself in the lower part of the
wall. Most of the rain runs down the wall, and only starts to soak in
lower down.

more often than not, yes, but damp higher up is nothing unusual.

In general, you try and prevent rain running down the wall in most
conditions. That's what guttering is for.
And if your theory is correct, you'd never get damp in an upstairs room.

Assuming the original plaster is ok, it's simply adding considerable
cost.

If the originasl plaster is ok, it's a pretty good sign you don't have a
damp problem.

damp can be present with no plaster damage. Ask all those people with
floors of brick or stone flags laid directly on damp bare earth. And
those with suspended ground floor wood floors with gaps between the
boards, no carpet and blocked cavity vents.

Oh I can assure you those 'damp meters' can show the presence of water in
apparently perfect 'old' plaster. Certainly did in my case. But it's still
there some 30 years later, looking fine.

If you've cured the cause of penetrating damp by removing piled up soil
etc and made sure the pointing is sound - as you'd have to do anyway -
leaving things to dry out naturally in a habited house would be my advice.

Penetrating damp usually occurs where the mortar has degraded to the
point where it is porous or has developed hairline cracks at the join
with the bricks.

Lime mortar was porous the day it was laid, its part of its nature.
Vic houses built and pointed in lime are not difficult to make dry: in
fact cement pointing increases the odds of damp occurring, it doesnt
reduce it.

You mean the original mortar the bricks were laid on? If a wall relied on
this being a perfect seal, they'd all leak. Have you never dismantled one?

The pointing is what matters.

Of course Vic bricks themselves are very porous too: soft Vic bricks
can hold upto a pint of water a piece.


NT

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
Rawlplugs go back to the '20s, AFAIK.
Of course, those were the fibrous ones.

Yup. However, I'm not sure how long it took for them to come into general
use on new builds. I've worked on '30s houses with the 'wedge between
bricks' method.

A long time. The rawlplug may go back to the 20s, but the cordless SDS
drill doesn't :-). Originally the only way to make the 'ole for a
rawlplug was a 'rawldrill' - the sort that you hit repeatedly with a
hammer, and which I remember my dad teaching me to use at quite an early
age. Not many portable electric drills of any kind around in those
days, so 'plugging the wall' in the time-honoured fashion - using a
plugging chisel - remained common practice into, I'd guess, the late 50s
/ mid 60s.

OOI, does anyone know when the TCT tipped masonry drill first appeared?
Was 'Mason Master' - which I remember from the 60s - the first brand?

--
Andy

In general, you try and prevent rain running down the wall in most
conditions. That's what guttering is for.
Driving rain is not uncommon.
And if your theory is correct, you'd never get damp in an upstairs room.
You get less upstairs
Oh I can assure you those 'damp meters' can show the presence of water in
apparently perfect 'old' plaster. Certainly did in my case. But it's still
there some 30 years later, looking fine.
Then you don't have a damp problem
You mean the original mortar the bricks were laid on? If a wall relied on
this being a perfect seal, they'd all leak. Have you never dismantled one?

The pointing is what matters.
So we're relying on 1/4" of sand and cement, perched precariously on (and
invariably not bonded to) 100 year old bricks are we? Try that on a SW
facing wall.

In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
In general, you try and prevent rain running down the wall in most
conditions. That's what guttering is for.

Driving rain is not uncommon.

Less so than you might think.

And if your theory is correct, you'd never get damp in an upstairs room.

You get less upstairs

If you rely on your meter, possibly.

Oh I can assure you those 'damp meters' can show the presence of water
in apparently perfect 'old' plaster. Certainly did in my case. But it's
still there some 30 years later, looking fine.

Then you don't have a damp problem

The 'meter' and several firms said I did. Don't you read earlier posts?

You mean the original mortar the bricks were laid on? If a wall relied
on this being a perfect seal, they'd all leak. Have you never
dismantled one?

The pointing is what matters.

So we're relying on 1/4" of sand and cement, perched precariously on
(and invariably not bonded to) 100 year old bricks are we?

Yup. Or do you advocate 'treating' every Victorian - and later - brick
wall?

On second thoughts, don't bother answering that one.

Try that on a SW facing wall.

Can't help you there. My house is built near north/south.

--
*Two wrongs are only the beginning *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
"stuart noble" writes:
So we're relying on 1/4" of sand and cement, perched precariously on (and
invariably not bonded to) 100 year old bricks are we? Try that on a SW
facing wall.

"perched precariously" requires lack of skill in the person doing it.
If done properly, yes it works fine.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Driving rain is not uncommon.

Less so than you might think.
If rain is accompanied by wind, which I'd say is the norm, then gutters
don't fully protect your walls.

The 'meter' and several firms said I did. Don't you read earlier posts?

What I'm saying, and I don't know how much clearer I can make it, is that,
if your plaster is in good nick, then you obviously don't have a damp
problem. Do *you* think you have a damp problem?

The pointing is what matters.

So we're relying on 1/4" of sand and cement, perched precariously on
(and invariably not bonded to) 100 year old bricks are we?

Yup. Or do you advocate 'treating' every Victorian - and later - brick
wall?
I try to alleviate damp to the best of my ability in the houses I'm
responsible for. In that respect I am able to monitor the success rate over
the long term and maybe my findings are of use to others, that's all.
Incidentally, I have a council wall half a mile long near here that was
re-pointed in just the way you suggested a couple of years back. At least
50% of the pointing is now missing. I tend to take notice of these things
and base my opinions on them rather than something I've read.

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So we're relying on 1/4" of sand and cement, perched precariously on
(and invariably not bonded to) 100 year old bricks are we? Try that on
a SW facing wall.

"perched precariously" requires lack of skill in the person doing it. If
done properly, yes it works fine.

Absolutely. Anyone with any experience at all will know just how difficult
properly made mortar splashes are to remove from bricks when dry. So can
and does adhere properly even when thin.

--
*I have my own little world - but it's OK...they know me here*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
Driving rain is not uncommon.

Less so than you might think.

If rain is accompanied by wind, which I'd say is the norm, then gutters
don't fully protect your walls.

No, but driving rain such as to soak through the walls is rare. If it were
common, Victorian houses wouldn't have been built as they are.

The 'meter' and several firms said I did. Don't you read earlier posts?

What I'm saying, and I don't know how much clearer I can make it, is
that, if your plaster is in good nick, then you obviously don't have a
damp problem. Do *you* think you have a damp problem?

No. What I'm saying is that plenty of 'experts' with money to be made will
tell you you have a problem with Victorian houses regardless. And you'll
find this isn't just my opinion.

The pointing is what matters.

So we're relying on 1/4" of sand and cement, perched precariously on
(and invariably not bonded to) 100 year old bricks are we?

Yup. Or do you advocate 'treating' every Victorian - and later - brick
wall?

I try to alleviate damp to the best of my ability in the houses I'm
responsible for. In that respect I am able to monitor the success rate
over the long term and maybe my findings are of use to others, that's
all.

I'm not saying what you propose won't be successful - merely unnecessary
expense.

Start by putting the walls back into a good state of repair and remove any
piled up earth etc *before* taking things further.

Incidentally, I have a council wall half a mile long near here that
was re-pointed in just the way you suggested a couple of years back. At
least 50% of the pointing is now missing. I tend to take notice of these
things and base my opinions on them rather than something I've read.

I tend to listen to genuine experts on my style of housing and pass on
their advice.

I've no idea why 'your' wall has suffered in this way. Poor workmanship,
probably. Councils ain't immune from this.

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"stuart noble" wrote in message ...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote in message ...

Your treatment attempts to deal with 'rising' damp.
Does it?
The general view these
days is that *genuine* rising damp is actually rare, and that most who
recommend treatment for similar symptoms - even if they do exist - are
more likely to be profit motivated.

I've never believed in it in brick built houses and, if it does exist, it's
likely to be combined with penetrating damp. Fact is I don't really care
where it's coming from. The wall is damp and you want to stop that
penetrating to the inside so you put a barrier there which prevents water
coming in but allows water vapour to escape. Easy to do, no drying time, and
leaves you a good finish to decorate.

that approach was used for decades, but is now deprecated.

NT

"stuart noble" wrote in message ...

You mean the original mortar the bricks were laid on? If a wall relied on
this being a perfect seal, they'd all leak. Have you never dismantled one?

The pointing is what matters.

So we're relying on 1/4" of sand and cement, perched precariously on (and
invariably not bonded to) 100 year old bricks are we? Try that on a SW
facing wall.

You get better results using lime for pointing than cement. I gave you
the link twice... no exucse for ignorance.

NT

You get better results using lime for pointing than cement. I gave you
the link twice... no exucse for ignorance.
1/4" thickness of lime mortar would be washed away with the first rainfall.
Perhaps you mean hydraulic lime? What type (and what ratio of pozzolan)
would you suggest? Give us some specifics instead of re-cycling other
peoples opinions. http://www.periodproperty.co.uk is rather far up its own
arse for my taste.

"stuart noble" wrote in message ...
You get better results using lime for pointing than cement. I gave you
the link twice... no exucse for ignorance.

1/4" thickness of lime mortar would be washed away with the first rainfall.
Perhaps you mean hydraulic lime? What type (and what ratio of pozzolan)
would you suggest? Give us some specifics instead of re-cycling other
peoples opinions. http://www.periodproperty.co.uk is rather far up its own
arse for my taste.

Well theyre the ones that know about it. Yes it would need to be
hydraulic. You dont need to add pozzolan to hydraulic. There is much
more than just one mix thats usable, ask you know who

NT

Yes it would need to be
hydraulic.
And pray tell me what the difference is between a lime mortar that *sets*
and a cement mortar, or would it be too subtle for me? Degrees of setting?
Yeah, well apparently a small amount of pozzolan is "a bad thing", as is too
much.
Maybe if I buy some lime putty from a bloke with a beard and stand it in a
biodregadable bucket during full moon.......sorry, www.periodproperty.com
is a jolly useful site.

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...

You get better results using lime for pointing than cement. I gave you
the link twice... no exucse for ignorance.

1/4" thickness of lime mortar would be washed away with the first
rainfall.

Nonsense. I am repointing and in places re-rendering the outside of my
house in a lime mortar and it survives rain very well indeed.


Perhaps you mean hydraulic lime?

That's a French product for French houses :-)


. http://www.periodproperty.co.uk is rather far up its own arse for my
taste.

Didn't used to be but once those with experience were driven off it has gone
that way.